CONTEXT 178 : DECEMBER 2023 25 BUILDINGS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE JOE THOMPSON Deciding on treatment for a timber frame Conserving a timber-framed structure depends on establishing the context, and a systematic approach of understanding, appraising, evaluating and justifying. Conservation is a multi-disciplinary process, and being able to succinctly communicate observations and interpretations is fundamental. The staged process of understanding, appraising, evaluating and justifying owes much to the ethics and philosophies that have been developed and articulated over the last two decades or so. This can be seen in publications such as ICOMOS’s Delhi Charter, English Heritage’s Principles, Policies and Guidance, its volumes on Practical Building Conservation, and the input of many experienced conservators. The National Planning Policy Framework states that this planned approach must be proportionate to the significance of the heritage asset and comprehensive enough to enable the potential impact of the intervention to be assessed. The first step in preparing a plan is to gather all the documents, including maps, illustrations, earlier reports, investigations and publications. This desktop assessment often proves to be of vital importance, dispelling myths, confirming facts and highlighting unknowns. It can direct practitioners to areas where further research and scholarship are required, complementing and guiding the onsite observations. The increasing amount of relevant content available online has helped this process to be cost-effective. The timber-framed structure is the primary three-dimensional record and requires its own examination. In many instances the visible evidence is fragmentary. This ranges from obscured, cut or missing timbers and empty mortices through to those requiring a closer inspection, such as the absence or presence of surface finishes and missing carpenters’ assembly marks. Furthermore, there can exist more subtle and nuanced evidence such as partially weathered and unweathered surfaces, and pressure marks or ‘shadows’ as well as the potential interpretive complications posed by reused timbers. All this information ideally needs to be captured and documented. A common fault is for those responsible to fail to record those features that they do not understand, or to erroneously dismiss them as irrelevant or inconvenient, when the client has given them a strong steer on their preferred outcome. This underlies the importance of separating out and sequencing the interpretation after, and distinct from, the observation. While these two processes constantly interact on site as ideas and hypotheses are developed, tested and either rejected or confirmed, it is important not to conflate the two. A good site report will have reviewed the desktop assessment and where possible confirm the documentary research, but it should also discuss uncertainties and inconsistencies, where they occur. This produces an A medieval rafter reused in the 16th century
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=